A juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial is refusing to follow the court’s definition of reasonable doubt, according to the defense.
Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s attorney, stood before Judge William Sullivan on Thursday and demanded that the juror be removed from the panel. The request came after the jury foreperson reportedly raised the alarm inside the deliberation room about one holdout who, according to Reddington, “refuses to listen to the law” governing reasonable doubt.
Reddington argued that earlier instructions from Sullivan had done nothing to fix the problem. He warned the standoff could unravel the entire case before it reaches a verdict.
If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame,” Reddington told the judge while pushing for the juror’s dismissal.
As originally reported, prosecutors pushed back hard against the motion. They argued the court had no business reaching into the jury room to sort out what was happening behind closed doors. Doing so, they said, would mean intruding on private deliberations. There was, in their words, “no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that’s part of deliberations.”
The prosecution also contended that Sullivan had already handled the situation correctly by re-reading the reasonable doubt instructions and polling each juror individually on whether they could follow the law.
Sullivan sided with prosecutors and declined to remove the juror. He called the dismissal of a panelist after deliberations have begun “a sensitive undertaking,” and said stepping in further could amount to taking sides in the jury’s internal debate.
Before overruling the defense objection and calling a recess, Sullivan noted that every juror had individually confirmed they were capable of following the court’s instructions.
The clash highlights just how fragile the proceedings have become in this closely watched case. With the foreperson flagging internal conflict and the defense raising the specter of a mistrial, the pressure on the jury room is mounting. For now, the full panel remains intact and deliberations continue, with Sullivan standing firm that the process must play out without further judicial intervention.